A suspect is apprehended in a department store by the security guard. The suspect is placed in handcuffs and taken to the manager’s office. The police are called and advised of the situation. Officer Martinez arrives at the department store approximately 15 minutes later. Officer Martinez takes a statement from the security guard and views the in-store camera film of the shoplifting incident. Officer Martinez places the suspect under arrest, reads the suspect the Miranda warnings, and asks the suspect if he would like to make a statement. The suspect replies, “No, I would like a lawyer”. The suspect is then transported to the local jail and booked. Six hours later, the suspect is interviewed by a detective who again reads him the Miranda warning. The detective then asks the suspect if he would like to talk. The suspect says, “Yes.” He eventually confesses to the crime.
Write a 1- to 2-page paper in which you:
Identify and discuss the constitutional amendments that would relate to this situation.
Discuss how the Edwards rule is related to this situation.
In your opinion, determine if the suspect’s confession to the detective is admissible. Support your opinion with specific case law or contemporary cases.
Use at least three quality references. Note: Wikipedia and other similar websites do not qualify as academic resources.
